thank you and to be honest if you want to bash it screw you personaly i believe if you stay with the traditional you will never become a true great because you cant break away from what other people think

@littleconqueror: That's exactly wat we've been arguing about. Is it fair to put wrong type of weapons into the sim? From the simulation that I've done by putting all type of weapons and chassis, the old one win but if we use only one type of chassis, the new one win unless the new setup has disadvantages (like vehicles against infantry or tank against vehicles).

However, I must say that in game, there is no way to test which is better. Just use the one u think is better. I appreciate anyone who is finding another good unit setup since, who know, maybe they will find a better one.

my inf build 15:5:10 cheaper and betteri dont use calvaryand in heavies i just put 6:1:3 cheaper and the traditional is 7:3 for heaviesbut my inf build is the only thing out of the ordinary and no1 even dare to bash it because i posted up the evidance that it works and i had my best eras using that

You are arguing about conditions that should NEVER happen in battle. If I faced those 90 Units, Id send in only snipers, around 6-9 squads. Range 20 - Armor 10. I will win while losing a few armor units. That is how a battle is supposed to be. If you take extreme cases with bad builds, wrong weapon types and try to negate bonuses then its simply bad gameplay, than being an efficient build.

And Ascendancy, no need to close the thread. People are discussing stuff, why do you wanna stop that? Why does it have to be "sensible"? Mods, please do not lock the thread or whatever please.

my inf build 15:5:10 cheaper and betteri dont use calvaryand in heavies i just put 6:1:3 cheaper and the traditional is 7:3 for heaviesbut my inf build is the only thing out of the ordinary and no1 even dare to bash it because i posted up the evidance that it works and i had my best eras using that

You are arguing about conditions that should NEVER happen in battle. If I faced those 90 Units, Id send in only snipers, around 6-9 squads. Range 20 - Armor 10. I will win while losing a few armor units. That is how a battle is supposed to be. If you take extreme cases with bad builds, wrong weapon types and try to negate bonuses then its simply bad gameplay, than being an efficient build.

And Ascendancy, no need to close the thread. People are discussing stuff, why do you wanna stop that? Why does it have to be "sensible"? Mods, please do not lock the thread or whatever please.

ok here we go again with the explaining1st IT'S CHEAPER2nd an equal battle like that will last 5 rounds no matter the build3rd either way it still won and if i fight a big battle i'm launching all i got not just the anti of what i am facing4th 4 range surving but it was still a WIN over the traditional build no matter how you look at it5th when it's anti inf vs anti inf it is still a tie AND CHEAPER6th who cares how long it lasted if you won a battle that was equal soldier amounts (in the case i just posted)

now for the guy that quoted my BR and said to lock this thread i saw a BEST finish of 77 poweri way more than double that you have no right to talk because with a power finish like that you need change

now for the guy that quoted my BR and said to lock this thread i saw a BEST finish of 77 poweri way more than double that you have no right to talk because with a power finish like that you need change

now for the guy that quoted my BR and said to lock this thread i saw a BEST finish of 77 poweri way more than double that you have no right to talk because with a power finish like that you need change

now for the guy that quoted my BR and said to lock this thread i saw a BEST finish of 77 poweri way more than double that you have no right to talk because with a power finish like that you need change

ok here we go again with the explaining1st IT'S CHEAPER2nd an equal battle like that will last 5 rounds no matter the build3rd either way it still won and if i fight a big battle i'm launching all i got not just the anti of what i am facing4th 4 range surving but it was still a WIN over the traditional build no matter how you look at it5th when it's anti inf vs anti inf it is still a tie AND CHEAPER6th who cares how long it lasted if you won a battle that was equal soldier amounts (in the case i just posted)

Its cheaper because you have less range. Ideally a battle should be over in 1 round. Max 2. Anything above that, then it isnt good. Now the reason your build won, is because you forced an even battle. In that case, there will be more than 4 rounds, so damage does more damage than range and therefore you won. But ideally, you are not supposed to have such a battle in the first place. Therefore you are arguing for an inefficient tactic.

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum